WEBVTT - A.O. Scott 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:04.400 The Craig Ferguson Pants on Fire Tour is on sale now. 0:00:04.600 --> 0:00:07.880 It's a new show, it's new material, but I'm afraid 0:00:07.920 --> 0:00:12.480 it's still only me, Craig Ferguson on my own, standing 0:00:12.480 --> 0:00:15.800 on a stage telling comedy words. Come and see me, 0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:18.520 buy tickets, bring your loved ones, or don't come and 0:00:18.560 --> 0:00:21.400 see me. Don't buy tickets and don't bring your loved ones. 0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:23.880 I'm not your dad. You come or don't come, but 0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:26.160 you should at least know what's happening, and it is. 0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:30.160 The tour kicks off late September and goes through the 0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:34.000 end of the year and beyond. Tickets are available at 0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:36.960 the Craig Ferguson Show dot Com slash tour. They are 0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:40.080 available at the Craig Ferguson show dot Com slash tour 0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:44.400 or at your local outlet in your region. My name 0:00:44.479 --> 0:00:48.479 is Craig Ferguson. The name of this podcast is Joy. 0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:53.080 I talk to interest in people about what brings them happiness. 0:00:56.440 --> 0:01:01.680 On the podcast Today EO Scott, Anthony Oliver Scott, or 0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:04.640 Tony Scott to his friends, of which there are many. 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:08.840 Tony was one of the chief movie critics in the 0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:12.640 New York Times for about twenty years and now is 0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.000 a literary critic on the New York Times Book Review 0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:18.360 or New York Times Review of Books. I think it 0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:23.000 is Actually he's very clever, he's very informed, and he's 0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:25.160 just a very interesting man. I hope you enjoy this 0:01:25.240 --> 0:01:30.480 conversation as much as I do. Tony. I didn't know 0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:33.480 until right now that you called yourself Tony. I was 0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:37.560 going to call you AO all day. That's okay. Does 0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:39.000 anybody ever call you AO? 0:01:41.440 --> 0:01:41.679 No? 0:01:42.400 --> 0:01:44.400 Okay, good. I don't think they should. I don't know 0:01:44.560 --> 0:01:47.000 they should call you. Why did you start using your initials? 0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:49.200 Because because of the filmmaker Tony. 0:01:48.920 --> 0:01:53.200 Scott a little bit, although I wasn't a film critic 0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:56.280 at the time, but it was I was run by 0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:59.960 Tony Scott. And there were actually a few Tony Scott's. 0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:02.840 There was the filmmaker, there was a baseball player when 0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:05.680 I was growing up. There's a jazz saxophonist. So the 0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:09.280 world seemed to be full of Tony Scott's and AO. 0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:13.600 The initials were had been used in my family. My 0:02:13.680 --> 0:02:19.000 great grandfather was also AO, and he had a company 0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:22.920 in the little town in Ohio where my grandfather and 0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:24.919 father grew up. That was called AO Scott and Sons, 0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:27.000 And when I was a kid, this was the family 0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:29.680 business and they were like I had little pencils that 0:02:29.760 --> 0:02:32.800 said AO Scott on them and like little stationary So 0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:35.480 it was it was. I had some association with it. It 0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:37.560 didn't just come out of nowhere. So I thought that'd 0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:41.720 be an interesting tribute to the ancestors. 0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:46.200 I think it's delightful now until well last year, you 0:02:46.320 --> 0:02:49.239 were the chief film critic of the New York Times, right. 0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:53.000 Yes, I was. I was eight chief film Creig when 0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:55.120 all the Dargas was was the other one. We kind 0:02:55.160 --> 0:02:56.000 of did it together. 0:02:56.280 --> 0:02:59.600 But here's the thing, though, I before we started this, 0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:05.240 I thought what kind of reviews AO Scott gave any 0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:08.720 movie I was in? So I looked up. You know what. 0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:13.080 You gave me good reviews for a couple of movies 0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:14.520 that I did back in the day. You gave me 0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:17.600 a good review for a movie called Saving Grace, which 0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:19.640 I had written and I was in, and you were 0:03:19.720 --> 0:03:23.160 very nice about it, I think, very fair about it. 0:03:24.120 --> 0:03:27.240 And then you had made because it was all in 0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:29.160 the New York Times app and the other one was 0:03:30.840 --> 0:03:34.160 a movie I'm very proud of called The Big Teas, 0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:40.119 which is a hairdressing competitive hairdressing movie that completely tanked. Yes, 0:03:40.120 --> 0:03:45.040 but it was. It was and is I think a 0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:50.280 fabulous film that is sadly no one's ever seen except you. 0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:52.640 But you probably can't remember it because you've seen so many. 0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:57.520 I vaguely remember it now that you've said the title, 0:03:57.560 --> 0:03:59.440 I don't think I'll tell you. I haven't thought about 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:02.520 it in don't know what is it twenty years? 0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:05.080 Yeah, well I haven't either, and I made it. But 0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:09.720 it's funny though, because I guess you get a similar 0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:13.800 thing to me, like I I get people like once 0:04:13.840 --> 0:04:17.599 I saw a documentary about Leonard Nimoy right, and it 0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:19.640 was a beautiful documentary. I don't know if you've seen it, 0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:23.120 called Becoming Spoke. His son made it. It's a real 0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:26.360 kind of love letter to his father's and I watched 0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:28.120 it was very emotional and I said to my wife 0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:30.240 at the time of coursh that was lovely. I really 0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:32.960 wish i'd had him on the late night show. And 0:04:33.000 --> 0:04:37.520 then she googled it and he'd be on twice. I 0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:40.599 was like a new recollection on it. Does that happen 0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:43.800 to you as well? Like you get movies, you've you've 0:04:43.839 --> 0:04:46.479 reviewed them, you thought about them, and then they go away. 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:48.000 It happens all the time. 0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:50.800 People will say, you know, I saw this movie, you know, 0:04:50.839 --> 0:04:53.839 the other night, and they'll they'll they'll, you know, say 0:04:53.880 --> 0:04:55.799 the title and I'll be like, oh, that sounds interesting. 0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:58.600 I've never seen it, and they were like, well, yeah, 0:04:58.640 --> 0:04:59.760 because you're you know. 0:05:01.240 --> 0:05:01.799 The DVD. 0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:06.159 Yes, I read it, because you reviewed it. It's it's 0:05:07.360 --> 0:05:09.479 it's very kind of humbling in a way because you, 0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:11.560 you know, you you you you put this work into 0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:14.440 this thing. You think, you think hard about it, you know, 0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:17.800 and and I always trying to do to do my 0:05:17.880 --> 0:05:20.120 best and not phone it in and and and take 0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:22.960 the movie seriously and think about it. But just you know, 0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:25.800 the the human brain and the passage of time, and 0:05:26.240 --> 0:05:28.320 you just kind of you lose it. 0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:31.239 But it's very interesting though, you, you and I my friend, 0:05:31.279 --> 0:05:33.919 we are dinosaurs. We are we are the last of 0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:39.160 a generation whose our memories will not be digitized from now. 0:05:39.279 --> 0:05:44.120 It's true, you know, my children, your children, their children, 0:05:44.200 --> 0:05:47.359 everybody will have a digital record of nearly everything they 0:05:48.040 --> 0:05:52.320 did and where they were. And I think that's kind 0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:56.960 of sad, because you you lose although I mean, and 0:05:57.000 --> 0:05:58.400 in one way it's good, I guess, because you can 0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:00.360 remember a lot more. But in a way it's because 0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:03.039 I think you lose. Memory does play some lovely tricks. 0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:03.919 You know. 0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:06.400 It helps you deal with stuff. It's a very clever 0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:11.159 thing it does. And and and forgetting is part of it. 0:06:11.200 --> 0:06:15.000 Forgetting and then you know, remembering what you've forgotten. So 0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:17.720 I have you know, I have all these books on 0:06:17.760 --> 0:06:20.560 my shelves, and and and I picked them up sometimes 0:06:20.600 --> 0:06:23.120 and I find, you know, I I I find things I. 0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:25.520 Wrote in them, notes I made and I don't remember. 0:06:25.320 --> 0:06:29.760 You know, yeah, but but but it does come back. 0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:32.000 The thing is that you know your your your can 0:06:32.040 --> 0:06:34.839 reawaken in your brain and I think there's something. I 0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:37.159 think you're yeah, there is something lost. If the idea 0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:39.839 is just that there is a digital record that says, 0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:42.240 you know, this is everything you've read, this is everything 0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:44.800 you've watched, this is how long I mean, now you 0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:49.200 know you you you go to to UH to read 0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:51.279 an article in the New York Times online, and it 0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:53.840 will tell you how long readers spent on it. 0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:57.400 I know that's right. Yeah, that must be unnerving. If 0:06:57.400 --> 0:06:59.600 you're writing for the New York Times and you say, wow, 0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:01.800 that's this one held people for two minutes. 0:07:01.880 --> 0:07:04.120 Well exactly, it's a little it's a little unnerving when 0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:06.640 you you know, you look, you look at the data 0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:09.119 and it says, you know, readers spend one one minute 0:07:09.120 --> 0:07:12.440 and thirty seven seconds on on this on this piece, 0:07:12.480 --> 0:07:14.480 it would have taken you know, three and a half 0:07:14.560 --> 0:07:16.440 minutes to read the whole thing. And you think, wow, 0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:19.440 they couldn't even they couldn't even give me three and 0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:19.800 a half. 0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:23.960 No, they couldn't. I wonder is that connected to your 0:07:24.000 --> 0:07:27.720 departure from film criticism and moving into because you're in 0:07:27.560 --> 0:07:29.720 the review of books now, aren't you. 0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:31.920 Yeah, yeah, I went. I mean it was it was 0:07:31.960 --> 0:07:35.400 a few things. I had started out as a as 0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:38.640 as a book critic before, before I before I went 0:07:38.640 --> 0:07:41.160 into movies. So in some ways it was something that 0:07:41.200 --> 0:07:43.160 I had always thought I would get back to. I 0:07:43.200 --> 0:07:46.600 thought when I was hired to be a film critic, 0:07:46.680 --> 0:07:49.080 I thought, well, this would be an interesting thing to. 0:07:49.080 --> 0:07:49.800 Do for a while. 0:07:49.880 --> 0:07:52.880 But really, you know, I'm this is this is a sideline, 0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:56.120 and I'm really a literary critic. And then that lasted 0:07:56.120 --> 0:08:00.680 twenty five years, and and uh so I wanted to 0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:03.480 get to get back, you know, back to that while 0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:07.440 there was still time in in my in my productive years, 0:08:07.520 --> 0:08:12.800 and and also to get just sort of off of 0:08:12.800 --> 0:08:15.240 the treadmill of the of the weekly review. I mean, 0:08:15.280 --> 0:08:17.480 the thing about being a film critic is that there 0:08:17.560 --> 0:08:20.200 is just it's it's kind of relentless. So you're seeing 0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:23.440 five or six movies a week, you're reviewing two or 0:08:23.480 --> 0:08:26.080 three of them, you know, week in and week out, 0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:29.559 year in, year out, and at a certain point you 0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:32.480 you kind of feel like you've I felt like I was, 0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:35.199 I was starting to run out of ideas and. 0:08:35.160 --> 0:08:36.840 Of of of moves. 0:08:36.880 --> 0:08:40.520 And does a row view of the does a row 0:08:40.559 --> 0:08:43.560 view of the love of the of the genre itself? 0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.800 Does it? Does it demystify it to any extent where 0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:48.360 you can connect to it in the same way? 0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:52.200 I think it does by repetition because you've seen, you know, 0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:55.760 the same thing, like there there are there are so 0:08:55.840 --> 0:08:59.120 many movies are you know, movies belong to two different 0:08:59.480 --> 0:09:02.720 genres and styles and schools. And in a way it's 0:09:02.720 --> 0:09:06.120 not their fault that they have so much in common 0:09:06.160 --> 0:09:08.719 that they're so you know that they follow certain formulas 0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:12.600 and patterns. But when you've seen hundreds that are sort 0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:15.480 of doing this, whether it's whether it's art films or 0:09:15.520 --> 0:09:18.840 commercial movies or whatever, when you think to yourself, oh, yeah, 0:09:19.120 --> 0:09:21.080 I know this one, I've seen this one before. That 0:09:21.400 --> 0:09:24.160 in a way that is a disservice to the individual 0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:28.240 movie you're looking at, because most viewers don't see it 0:09:28.280 --> 0:09:31.400 that way. They're seeing this movie and they're not thinking 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:34.160 of sort of the hundreds more like it. 0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:36.480 But I also thought, you know that. 0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:41.360 One thing that I always worried about, and I always 0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:43.600 thought about, and as I would kind of read other 0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:46.920 critics would think about, is that I would always worry 0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:49.400 about getting to a point where I would be mostly 0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:51.840 looking backwards, where I would think, oh, you know, they 0:09:51.840 --> 0:09:55.199 don't make them like they used to, or the great 0:09:55.240 --> 0:09:59.800 movies I've all been made, and not being receptive to 0:10:00.200 --> 0:10:00.800 was new. 0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:03.640 And what was interesting and what was happening in the present. 0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:05.960 And I was thought, if I felt like I was 0:10:06.000 --> 0:10:09.600 getting there, that would be the time to stop, because art, 0:10:09.600 --> 0:10:10.360 did you get there? 0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:15.240 Not quite? I stopped before I got there. It's weird 0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:17.880 because you know, I haven't made a bunch of independent 0:10:17.920 --> 0:10:20.960 films when I was I don't know, in my thirties 0:10:21.320 --> 0:10:23.480 early forties, before I started Late Night, I did a 0:10:23.559 --> 0:10:26.240 lot of that and that was a lot of how 0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:29.599 I earned my living. And yeah, and I loved it. 0:10:29.640 --> 0:10:32.840 But I look at film now because it was my 0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:35.960 life and I was making them. They I look at 0:10:35.960 --> 0:10:38.000 film now and I think it's harder and harder to 0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:42.240 find in the film business. Uh, I kind of the 0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:47.840 idea that films are art. They are they are worthy 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:50.560 of academic examination in the form of the kind of 0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:55.040 criticism you do. It's no, I don't I don't see. 0:10:55.160 --> 0:10:57.360 Maybe I'm not looking. But is it still there? 0:10:57.960 --> 0:11:00.480 Well, I think it's still there, but I think that 0:11:00.600 --> 0:11:04.520 it's it's gotten smaller and more marginal in a way. 0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:06.360 I mean, I think that there were always, you know, 0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:08.600 there were always bad movies and good movies. They're always 0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:13.240 sure commercial movies, right, and some of those bad movies 0:11:13.280 --> 0:11:17.880 are kind of good. But I do feel like, and 0:11:18.000 --> 0:11:20.600 I don't know, you know, if it's because of streaming 0:11:20.720 --> 0:11:23.280 or because of other changes in the in the in 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:29.360 the business, or other kind of generational shifts, but I 0:11:29.720 --> 0:11:32.200 do find something similar that that that you have to 0:11:32.240 --> 0:11:38.400 look much harder, and that the movies that are ambitious 0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:41.000 in that way, or creative in that way, or or 0:11:41.520 --> 0:11:44.920 artistic in that way, are being made at a smaller 0:11:44.960 --> 0:11:47.600 and smaller scale and for a smaller and smaller audience. 0:11:47.640 --> 0:11:49.760 So it's a little bit sometimes I feel like. 0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:53.600 I think it's I think it's economics in America particularly, 0:11:53.920 --> 0:11:57.160 I was I worked with an Italian film director ones 0:11:57.559 --> 0:12:02.800 called Roberto Faienza, who who said, we were making a 0:12:02.800 --> 0:12:04.800 film in Italy, and it was like it was a 0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:07.080 lot of money again, spending those things I mean, and 0:12:07.120 --> 0:12:12.000 it was it's not really a very good script, but 0:12:12.040 --> 0:12:15.320 there were like you know, panzer divisions and like loads 0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:17.520 of cameras and stuff. And I was like, wow, you 0:12:17.640 --> 0:12:19.960 guys are I said to Robert, you know in the 0:12:20.040 --> 0:12:23.320 day of some enormous set up. You guys are spending 0:12:23.440 --> 0:12:26.559 a lot of money on this picture. And they said, Greg, 0:12:26.800 --> 0:12:32.160 the difference between Italy and America is this. In America 0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:38.240 you make movies to make money. In Italy, we use 0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:43.400 money to make movies, a different idea. And I thought 0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:46.680 it kind of is that the because Italians something even 0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:51.439 now of recent times, oh god, what's his name again? 0:12:51.760 --> 0:12:54.680 They have fabulous Italian director like Randi Blitza. 0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:58.040 Yeah, Sorrentinoo. 0:12:58.160 --> 0:13:01.480 Yeah, these movies are amazing. 0:13:01.000 --> 0:13:03.320 Exactly right, and they're they're at a kind of scale 0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:07.720 that unbelievable, even even the ones like that, the one, 0:13:08.080 --> 0:13:10.520 what was it called the Hand of God? 0:13:10.600 --> 0:13:11.480 Did you see that one? 0:13:11.920 --> 0:13:15.880 That is a fabulous film, unbelievable, It's incredible, and it's 0:13:16.000 --> 0:13:18.200 but it's a very like, you know, in a way, 0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:21.839 it's a small personal movie in terms of history. It's 0:13:21.840 --> 0:13:23.840 a story. It's his story, it's his life. 0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:26.280 It's about his his you know, his youth and growing 0:13:26.320 --> 0:13:28.600 up in the terrible tragedy that happens in his family. 0:13:29.000 --> 0:13:33.840 But the scale of it and just the the technique 0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:36.839 of it is so is so big and so extravagant, 0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:40.080 and you you, you couldn't imagine that in in you know, 0:13:40.200 --> 0:13:42.800 in in an equivalent movie in America would be like 0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:47.720 would be shot on an iPhone in somebody's apartment with 0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:48.480 their friends. 0:13:54.440 --> 0:13:57.840 I wonder for me, anyway, it's kind of like the 0:13:57.840 --> 0:13:59.880 same thing with music. I wonder if it's just because 0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:02.360 getting older and I'm like, our music is rubbish now 0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:05.480 and it's too you know, digitized and film is the same. 0:14:05.559 --> 0:14:07.800 And I wonder if that's one of the products of aging, 0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:13.640 is that all art becomes awful? But I don't think so, 0:14:14.440 --> 0:14:18.520 simply because there are guys like Sorrentino who exists, you know. 0:14:18.960 --> 0:14:22.160 So I think it's a And I wonder if if 0:14:22.200 --> 0:14:25.160 you go from I mean, first of all, the idea 0:14:25.880 --> 0:14:29.320 that you, as you know, as a young man, would 0:14:29.440 --> 0:14:32.960 want to get into criticism, is that even a is 0:14:33.000 --> 0:14:37.360 that even a thing now with someone is academic criticism? 0:14:37.480 --> 0:14:41.360 Even it's kind of grandfather then of the New York Times. 0:14:41.360 --> 0:14:42.760 But I don't know if it's anywhere else. 0:14:43.320 --> 0:14:45.760 I think it's I mean, I I do meet young people, 0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:48.920 and I do sometimes teach young people who are interested 0:14:48.920 --> 0:14:50.720 in it, you know, who want who want to write 0:14:50.720 --> 0:14:54.160 about film or want to write about the arts in 0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:57.800 in in you know, in a way that's that's serious 0:14:57.840 --> 0:15:02.720 and creative and and and literary. And I think, uh, 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:05.440 there just are so few outlets. I mean, I don't 0:15:05.440 --> 0:15:08.880 think it's it's it's not like it's ever been an 0:15:08.920 --> 0:15:11.000 advisable way to make a living. It's not as if 0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:12.840 anyone would ever say to you, oh, if you have 0:15:12.840 --> 0:15:14.920 to go into film criticism, and you'll be you know, 0:15:15.040 --> 0:15:19.000 that's yeah. 0:15:17.480 --> 0:15:19.560 That's where the money is. Even even enough to pay 0:15:19.560 --> 0:15:22.480 your rent. On the other hand, there there there were. 0:15:22.680 --> 0:15:26.080 I'm old enough to remember, you know, there were magazines, 0:15:26.120 --> 0:15:28.400 and there were newspapers, and every city had them, and 0:15:28.440 --> 0:15:31.000 they all employed film critics. And they were alternative weeklies, 0:15:31.040 --> 0:15:33.920 which were hugely important in critism. 0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:37.000 I mean they mad, they marred to get a decent review, 0:15:37.000 --> 0:15:38.240 and those really marred. 0:15:38.480 --> 0:15:40.920 Yeah, they mattered a lot. They mattered in the local markets. 0:15:40.960 --> 0:15:43.880 And they were also great schools for writers to to, 0:15:44.480 --> 0:15:48.160 you know, to to to to come up and young 0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:50.800 people or people from from different kinds of backgrounds could 0:15:50.840 --> 0:15:54.120 have a chance to learn the craft and to learn 0:15:54.160 --> 0:15:58.000 something about about about writing and about criticism, and and 0:15:58.040 --> 0:15:59.880 that what I worry is that that doesn't exist. I mean, 0:15:59.920 --> 0:16:01.960 you can, you know, you can write a sub stack, 0:16:02.000 --> 0:16:04.040 you can write a newsletter. You can you can go 0:16:04.200 --> 0:16:08.360 online and and say what you have to say. You 0:16:08.400 --> 0:16:11.720 can post it on on social media on letterboxed or 0:16:11.760 --> 0:16:15.680 on you know, on on x or Facebook or wherever. 0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:19.640 But the the the sense of it as a as 0:16:19.680 --> 0:16:23.120 a craft, as a discipline, as as as a way 0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:26.320 of of of of being serious and and and of 0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:28.640 writing as well as you can I don't know how 0:16:28.640 --> 0:16:30.440 you I don't know how you learn that now, I 0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:35.360 don't know how you where where the the the the 0:16:35.400 --> 0:16:38.520 institutions or the or the outlets are that can teach 0:16:38.520 --> 0:16:38.760 you that. 0:16:39.480 --> 0:16:43.720 And what about the idea of uh of creating the 0:16:43.920 --> 0:16:49.080 because you write very well, did you ever write phelt No? 0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:50.640 Were you never tempted to do that? 0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:51.720 Not? 0:16:51.920 --> 0:16:52.280 Really? 0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:57.840 You know, I'm I uh, you know it works clearly, yes, 0:16:57.960 --> 0:16:59.400 And and every once in a while I've sort of 0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:01.480 thought about it, and like you know, you'd be sitting 0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:03.200 around with some phrase, oh, we should write it, but yeah, 0:17:03.280 --> 0:17:04.119 let's write a screenplay. 0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:05.800 Let's write a screenplay about to this. But it never 0:17:05.880 --> 0:17:07.679 you must never do that. Yes, no. 0:17:08.000 --> 0:17:11.040 And and having you know, having been asked by enough people, 0:17:11.040 --> 0:17:12.919 would you read my screenplay? I never want to be 0:17:13.320 --> 0:17:16.080 in the position to be the person, you know, saying, hey, 0:17:16.680 --> 0:17:18.119 I wrote this screen would you read it? 0:17:18.480 --> 0:17:21.679 So I think if you wrote a screenplay, though, it 0:17:21.800 --> 0:17:24.600 would garner some interest that someone go, you know, I'd 0:17:24.600 --> 0:17:28.120 be quite interested in reading that, especially if you put 0:17:28.160 --> 0:17:32.679 a superhero in it or someone with magical powers. Because that, 0:17:32.920 --> 0:17:35.560 I wonder is because Scorsese took a law of flat 0:17:35.720 --> 0:17:41.600 for saying these these wearing movies. Are you sympathetic to 0:17:41.640 --> 0:17:43.600 his take on it? I? 0:17:43.800 --> 0:17:47.919 I am, actually, I mean I I I spend a 0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:51.560 lot of time, as as one has to, you know, 0:17:51.880 --> 0:17:54.880 thinking about and writing about and trying to figure out 0:17:54.960 --> 0:17:58.879 what to do with as a critic these the superhero 0:17:58.920 --> 0:18:02.840 movies and the franchise movies, and how in a way 0:18:02.880 --> 0:18:05.200 to give them the you know, to take them seriously 0:18:05.280 --> 0:18:07.080 and give them a benefit of the doubt and not 0:18:07.080 --> 0:18:09.720 not rejudge them, because you never wanted to be a 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:11.639 snob and say, well, you know, I hate all of 0:18:11.680 --> 0:18:15.080 these kinds of movies. But but I do think that 0:18:16.080 --> 0:18:20.280 they imposed a lot of limitations on the creativity of 0:18:20.320 --> 0:18:22.920 the people who were making them, just simply partly by 0:18:22.960 --> 0:18:26.000 virtue of being franchised, of being you know, here's a 0:18:26.000 --> 0:18:29.080 pre existing intellectual property. You have to tell the story 0:18:29.440 --> 0:18:33.080 a certain way according to to you know, to certain 0:18:33.080 --> 0:18:35.840 conventions and procedures, and it has to be part of 0:18:35.840 --> 0:18:38.919 this bigger thing, which is not I think, a big 0:18:39.520 --> 0:18:41.960 a bigger imaginative thing so much as it's a bigger 0:18:42.280 --> 0:18:43.360 commercial thing. 0:18:43.680 --> 0:18:47.480 R So, So I mean I saw that. I'm sure 0:18:47.520 --> 0:18:49.639 you saw you see the movie Wolverine, the kind of 0:18:49.800 --> 0:18:53.200 or the story about which I was surprised by because 0:18:53.280 --> 0:18:56.000 I was like, that's actually a really good movie. That's 0:18:56.040 --> 0:18:58.040 a good one. Yeah. Yeah, it's a really kind of 0:18:58.240 --> 0:19:05.159 it's poetic and emotional and in and and dramatic and fabulous. 0:19:05.200 --> 0:19:07.800 And but I've watched a lot of the other ones 0:19:07.800 --> 0:19:10.200 because I have you know, I have young kids and 0:19:11.200 --> 0:19:15.919 or they were young at a point, and some of 0:19:15.960 --> 0:19:20.360 these movies are just dreadful. And they're dreadful because they're 0:19:20.359 --> 0:19:22.560 a franchise. I think. I think that's what it is. 0:19:22.800 --> 0:19:25.760 Well, I think that's right, because they just exist in 0:19:25.800 --> 0:19:27.359 a way to get you to the next one, to 0:19:27.440 --> 0:19:32.840 keep to keep the fans engaged, and not necessarily to 0:19:32.960 --> 0:19:35.639 provide in a way I think that some of them do. 0:19:35.760 --> 0:19:38.679 I think well, Wolverring is a good example to provide 0:19:38.720 --> 0:19:42.640 a sort of a complete experience in and of themselves. 0:19:44.240 --> 0:19:47.600 And uh and I think that that that it's sort 0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:52.560 of run certainly in the Marvel universe, I think has 0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:57.320 has has run into real into a real dry period. 0:19:57.400 --> 0:19:58.520 I mean, I don't think those. 0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:01.520 Well, it's it's it's interesting because to even talk about 0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:05.040 these things, and you I've read some stuff you wrote 0:20:05.040 --> 0:20:09.800 about this about the fandom in these things is actually 0:20:10.680 --> 0:20:14.199 for a very overused word, but I can't think of 0:20:14.240 --> 0:20:16.240 any word. One off the top of my head right 0:20:16.280 --> 0:20:20.280 now is the word that there's a toxic nature to 0:20:21.240 --> 0:20:26.840 this kind of allegiance to franchises and movies, the kind 0:20:26.880 --> 0:20:33.960 of comic con warriors who will defend their their franchises 0:20:34.320 --> 0:20:39.760 that basically they're just customers of with some wild loyalty. 0:20:40.720 --> 0:20:44.440 Do you think that, I mean, I don't remember that 0:20:44.520 --> 0:20:48.280 existing before maybe Star Wars and stuff, but not really. 0:20:48.960 --> 0:20:52.040 No, I don't think so. I mean, I think I 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:56.800 think it grew out of I think it, you know, fandom. 0:20:57.240 --> 0:20:59.880 It's an interesting history because I think it went from 0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:05.480 being a kind of subcultural thing among young people right 0:21:05.800 --> 0:21:08.920 that who who you know, who felt like they were 0:21:09.680 --> 0:21:14.840 maybe outsiders or misunderstood or nerds, and and here was 0:21:14.880 --> 0:21:17.359 a thing that that that they could connect to and 0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:21.560 and connect with each other through their through their mutual 0:21:21.560 --> 0:21:26.200 interest in and at a certain point that became a 0:21:26.240 --> 0:21:31.280 form of that became a dominant form in the culture 0:21:31.280 --> 0:21:33.840 and in the way the culture is consumed with I 0:21:33.880 --> 0:21:36.280 think exactly. I think toxic is the word, and I 0:21:36.320 --> 0:21:41.240